This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The statement "Autism (especially High-functioning) is linked to poverty, depression, and suicide.", under "# 6.2 Responses from the movement... Further responses of the movement can be summarized as follows:..." seems to be really out of place. Since the responses listed seem to support the movement, this one just seems like it was placed there in a vandalism attempt. Thoughts? Nodnarb232001 07:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Definitely out of place. I would guess that the "school-yard bully" treatment of anyone not deemed to be normal would be more likely to contribute to poverty, depression and [suicidal thoughts]. Of course, autistics would fall into the bully's definition of "abnormal" thus becoming prime targets as they are particularly unable to fight back. I would suggest that high-functioning autistics in this more (enlightened?) age are more likely to take their place as functioning members of society and I am sure that Frank Klein would agree with me there. JimScott 23:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the following statement from the article because it made no sense at all to me:

Some autistics don't want to see a culture of "is it because I is autistic?" develop, as has happened with the black civil rights movement.

Q0 05:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

That entire paragraph seemed totally uncitable. Neurodivergent 17:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the following paragraph since it still has not been cited Q0 21:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

There are some autistics, who are disillusioned by the fact that the autism rights movement has made little attempt to distance itself from other civil rights movements. Also, some autistics classing themselves as evangelical Christians do not want to see parallels drawn between the autism rights movement and the pro-homosexuality movement, as homosexuality is something condemned in the Bible, but autism isn't. Some autistics also want to distance the autistic rights movement as much as possible from the feminism movement, for various reasons.

Why does the autism movement wish to separate itself from feminism? -- Bronwyn Gannan 05:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC).

This appears to be the opinion of some people in the movement, not the whole movement. I can't say much about it though since the person who wrote it did not include a reference. Q0 17:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps because autism is a medical condition while feminism is a social class movement born in the early 70's as our culture began to move from "What can we do for others?" to "What is in it for me?". Apples and oranges really. JimScott 22:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Removed the following line:

" Some critics of the movement think that claiming autism is a natural way of being and not a disorder is non-sense and ridiculous."

Makes no sense, no citation. But I think the last section needs a more serious rewrite. Theconroy 16:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

When you say the last section, are you referring to the "criticism from within the movement" section? There was a whole paragraph in that section flagged as needing a citation, but I removed that paragraph since it had been flagged long enough and still nobody has cited it. Q0 23:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

By definition, the title of this page is obfuscatory. It is not talking about autism. It is talking about Asperger's Syndrome. If you call it Asperger's Rights Movement, I have no comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.71.241.43 ( talk) 04:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The Essential Difference

I don't understand the relavence of the following statement, which is the last sentence of the Controversy:criticism section Q0 10:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Simon Baron-Cohen, for instance, highlights the fact in his book The Essential Difference that there are some jobs, where an excess of empathy would compromise one's capacity to do one's job e.g. armed forces officer.

I find the following statement from the "Opposition to an alleged insultive view of autism" section confusing:

However, perhaps the biggest myth has been the link between autism and the MMR vaccine.

I'm not sure what the statement claims is a myth about the MMR vaccine. Also, I don't know how this statement fits within the greater context of the particular section. Q0 05:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I attempted to clarify the statement. Cheyinka 03:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Falconleaf, I don't know why you added "left-wing" to a number of paragraphs. I took them out - if you have some sort of proof that it's primarily people on the political left with that belief, please, provide it! Cheyinka 22:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Falconleaf. Please cite the commentary that "the movement" is related to acceptance of homosexuality and the assertion that it has a liberal bias. It's news to me, and probably to other people who read this page, so, please, provide sources!! Cheyinka 01:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It is true just look at their website. Falconleaf

Whose website? Where? Is there only one website representing every group who might be considered, by an encyclopedia, to support autistics' rights? Cheyinka 04:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Falconleaf has been vandalizing the autism pages. Please watch for that. I just removed John Kerry from the list of autistic rights advocates. Falconleaf appears to be bigotted against autistics and homosexuals. If it weren't for his user page, I'd guess Falconleaf is John Best Jr. Neurodivergent 15:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I added the left-wing/right-wing stuff to the Uncyclopedia article on autism [1]. Q0 04:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It seemed empty so I've expanded on the continued debate section but it seems it might be better combined with History or to put a history section in the top of criticisms and controversy.

User:Johngagon 14:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Should we avoid using words/phrases like "pro-cure" and "anti-cure"? I'm coming at this from the perspective of the Abortion_debate, and the terms "pro choice" and "pro life" which these labels seem to be modelled on.

The use of "anti-cure" can be justified because its a label a group has chosen to put on themselves. In general we accept the use of such self-given labels, though we might have second thoughts about... I can't think of anything right now, but something like paedophiles insisting on being called "child lovers". On the other hand, even with the quotes, should we be accepting "pro-cure" and using it throughout the article, even with quote marks (which don't make all that much of a difference). Could we fall back "detractors"/"critics" etc as would be more usual?

I'm the father of two children within the autistic spectrum. My older son functions fine within his differences. The other has severe impairments. This article frames discussion is such a way that in order to advocate for my older son, I should be consistent in leaving my younger son unable to eat solid food, use basic motor skills or be able to coherently communicate with others. Because if I want to help one, I *must* be a part of an ideology that rejects accepting the other's differences and wants to treat my older boy as "diseased." How incredibly stupid. (Unsigned)

I didn't find the statement in the article that parents should not try to help and educate their children. Maybe the article should address that, as it has been discussed repeatedly elsewhere. Something like not being able to eat solid food could even be life-threatening, although not necessarily related to autism. Neurodivergent 23:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The article justifies the movement's position vis a vis children repeated with rhetorical slight of hand suggesting that since severe developmental differences in children might become less severe over time, that one ought not to provide treatment -- and in fact, that one ought not to provide the specific (behavioural) treatment that would help my younger son, as his problems are in fact related to autism and do, in fact, threaten his health.

Does the article really do that? I'll have to check. The autism rights movement is really not that different to the disability rights movement. So the movement is more concerned with social issues, and not medical jargon such as "outcome" and "severity". Opposition to ABA is not universal in the autism rights movement, but it is common on the following grounds: (1) Unproven effectiveness - you say ABA will help your son, but you'll find that the evidence on the effectiveness of ABA is rather poor; (2) Possible use of aversives; (3) Unknown adverse effects - e.g. psychological pressure to "fit in". Neurodivergent 16:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I keep hearing that it's "unproven," but the sole source for these assertions are autistic rights activists, none of whom have admitted to vomiting all over themselves to express displeasure. Furthermore, the only source for use of aversives again comes from activists. Your last criticism is based on unalloyed speculation.

Let me use a parallel example from my own experience. My brother and I are both symptomatic for Marfan Syndrome. We're both tall and hyperflexible and have had some problems with posture. In my case, I've only had to deal with flat feet. I don't think anyone should discriminate against me based on the way I look or try to lop a few inches off. But it does not follow that this also means that nobody should have given my brother, who displays Marfan's more severely than I do, several surgeries to ensure that he can walk and see properly. But if I were to use the POV of the movement as expresed in this article, then it would be wrong, because we ought to not interfere with his "physiodivergence," just as we ought not to interfere in mine. In fact, you could even speciously argue that since I turned out all right, there's no reason to assume that he wouldn't.

I'm guessing those treatments are clinically proven. Do you think a behavioral treatment for your brother's condition would've been appropriate? That is, punish bad posture/walking and reward good posture/walking, with food and such. Same with vision - why not? Neurodivergent 16:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

If it has been proven in clinical trials -- just like ABA -- sure. What makes behavioural treatments any different from others? Because of a pervasive social bias against them? Who's attaching a stigma to people with autism now, then? Or could it be that your definition of "autism," specifically excludes non-pathological elements that go beyond mere "diversity?"

Unfortunately, that argument *is* specious, and like the argument put forth in the article, it does not take into account the time sensitive nature of treatment. If my brother had not had his "physiodivergence" treated like the disease it is (in his case, not mine) in time, then he would have suffered ill health for the rest of his life. Similarly, my younger son's neurodivergent nature *is* a disease and it needs to be treated like one, even if my older son's is not and even if many other people in the autistic spectrum's divergences are not.

It's ironic, really. This movement for neurodivergence justifies much of its activism by *ignoring* divergence within its own spectrum, because to admit that there is a real pathology at certain points in that spectrum, separate from any reasonable social construction. You yourself have suggested a further rhetorical trick with the "not necessarily related to autism" comment too, where we can magically reclassify real pathologies as "not-autism" when they are clearly facets of some kinds of autism. This kind of selective reading is also a fallacy.

What you have to realize is that any pathologies associated with autism are not autism. Consider diseases associated with certain races or genders. They are not the same as the race and gender, but conditions that occur more frequently in that race or gender. There's no reason to medicalize an entire race or gender because medical conditions occur more frequently in them. But you can medicalize the conditions themselves. Unless a pathology is characteristic of all autistics (or at least of most autistics) you really cannot say that autism as a whole is phatological because of that pathology - to be consistent, you should do that with races, genders, sexual preferences, and so forth. Neurodivergent 16:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that anything bad that correlates with autism isn't autism. This is inaccurate and obviously an instance of reasoning at the service of an agenda. Your statement about the criteria of pathologies is also mistaken. By your reasoning, if somebody saws off my foot and I walk with a limp, then the limp is not a consequence of having a foot removed because there are people with feet who also walk with a limp. This is obviously not so. Similarly, there are several pathologies that are associated with autism in a way that obviously indicate that they *are* symptoms of autism.

The thing is that I *don't* think my older son should have to conform to many of the standards set by the "neurotypical" world. We trust him to enjoy personal growth within his own interests as much as we can and we do not force him to do things that upset him just because that's "how it's done."

But there is no way I can support any movement that would provide this support at the expense of my younger son's well-being, which as a Canadian, this movement has already done. This ideology is broken; it needs to be fixed.

This statement never fails to amuse me: "Weintraub has expressed concern about his son's choice to be Mickey Mouse for Halloween instead of characters from Lord of the Rings like the other children." I mean... hey, lady, count your blessings. What if he wanted to be Minnie??? -- Bluejay Young 05:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

What if he was on drugs on in a gang? At least he wouldn't be brain disordered, right? Neurodivergent 14:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• dies laughing* Thanks, you made my night! -- Bluejay Young 04:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is this article so incredibly long? For something that gets "hundreds of signatures," does it really deserve an article longer than that on the Gay Rights Movement? Kingcobweb 11:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Make the Gay Rights Movement article longer then. Well written and informative articles like this one shouldn't be shortened just because other articles aren't as long. Shadowoftime 19:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, the Gay Rights Movement article has a short opposition section that has a main article tag to the LGBT rights opposition article. In the autism rights movement article, the controversy and criticsm section is in the main article. If controversy/critism was split off into a daughter article, the main article would be shorter. Q0 10:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

"Over time, some internet meme has also resulted because of the autism rights movement, much of which is tongue in cheek criticism of the self-diagnosis issue as well as common perceptions about alternative sexual self-identifications."

Can someone please tell me what this is talking about? I know the words, but I can't figure out what they mean in this order. 199.126.166.13 00:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps "The autism rights movement has created and been the target of some internet memes, much of which is sarcastic criticism of self-diagnosis, through perception of sexual self-identification." I assume it's a few pictures or text jokes somewhere comparing those who self-diagnos to an autism spectrum disorder in comparision to someone coming out the closet or who have gender difficulties. - Gattsuru 3 November 2006

I have removed the following from the article:

Autism can be considered to be a genetic gift, as it has been shown that brilliant minds are often linked to autism. Famous autists include Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, an the poet W. B. Yeats. This can all be explained in a book entitled- In Autism and Creativity: Is There a Link Between Autism in Men and Exceptional Ability. Note that autism in women is often under diagnosed.

This was in the introductory section, and this paragraph does not describe material relavent to an introduction to the movement. In addition, famous people speculated to have been autistic is already mentioned in the article, so this new information is redundant. It also seems to suggest that Einstein, Newton, and Yeats are undisputably autistic. However, it is necessary to say that some people have disputed such claims, per Wikipedia's Neutral point of view policy. Q0 09:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I remember when Einstein (along with Every Artist Ever) was bipolar, and for a brief period he was schizophrenic. I also remember when Mozart had Tourette syndrome because he wrote scatological humor. Psychiatric texts at least used to talk about saints who had visions as having "psychotic breaks", and Van Gogh has been diagnosed with just about everything. There are people over on Songfacts who seriously believe John Lennon had ADHD because he had an interest in a wide variety of subjects, and on and on. It seems that retroactively diagnosing famous people with the disease du jour doesn't make a lot of sense. Should it be in articles about autism at all? -- Bluejay Young 04:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

There are related links placed in the Autism article that should have been placed here. I have added them to the bottom of the external links list. Malangthon 00:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Being that userboxes are beginning to be one of my perseverations I created one, see what you think.

This user supports the rights of autistic people to speak for themselves.

-- Bluejay Young 02:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Fabulous! I'm going to add it to my page. best regards, Jim Butler^{( talk)} 08:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I found these templates that might be appropriate to add to the article. One of them already includes autism rights movement in it. However, I'm not sure if the size of one of them will cause it to be distracting. I'm also unsure if they should be placed at the top or bottom of the page. What does everyone else think? Q0 20:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

{{ Discrimination sidebar}}

{{ rights}}

I think that {{ Discrimination sidebar}} is appropriate for the article, considering that it links to the article and is thus part of the series. I would put it in the "issues" section, right between "==Issues==" and "The movement has a number of issues". That seems like a topically appropriate place, and there's no sidebar or pictures there now so it shouldn't be distracting or "busy". The other template seems appropriate but I'm not sure where to put it; that might be clearer after the first is placed. — coel acan — 23:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 3#Category:People with autistic spectrum disorders -- Can "People on the autistic spectrum" be an acceptable name for this category? Currently only three people have commented; the discussion needs more voices. — coel acan — 23:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I felt that the article was properly named and wish that I had seen the change request going around in time to comment on it. Well-meaning, highly-functional Autistics like Frank Klein and Jim Sinclair can deny that this is a disorder until they are blue in the face. As the primary caregiver of one who is not so fortunate, the idea that this is anything but a disorder is ludicrous. Although an Autistic child is what he is (for better or for worse), that does not mean that we investigating how Autism occurs and what, if anything, can be done to prevent it. True love for an Autistic child goes far beyond the current generation's obsession with "What's in it for me?" Love also sees generations ahead; as in "What will happen to my [grand]child when I am gone? Will he end back up locked crying in his bedroom as he was when I found him and took him in?" JimScott 17:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

How is anything after the debate is ongoing useful? It makes the whole sentence rather confusing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.72.59.84 ( talk • contribs).

Why was the link to CIBRA removed from the list of Self-Advocacy Sites? JimScott 17:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I am involved in an edit war on the Applied behavior analysis article. My opponents in this are two practitioners of ABA who systematically revert all critical edits. They have resorted to outright lying about Wikipedia policy in this endeavor. I could use some assistance in making sure the article does not go back to being a puff piece.

Doesn't the following section violate WP:BLP pretty severely? There's not a single reliable source, and it's titled Speculation - at minimum without citation it's original research. The only source that's still running, neurodiversity, doesn't really meet my understanding of a reliable source, particularly not for living persons. WLU 18:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

===Speculation of autism in famous people===

Main articles: People speculated to have been autistic and List of autistic people

There has been speculation that well-known contemporary and historical people may have been autistic in some form [2] and the autism rights movement has participated in this speculation. Those who are most commonly discussed are Albert Einstein, Bill Gates, Isaac Newton, and Thomas Jefferson. In addition, there are rumors that Steven Spielberg is diagnosed. Although this is brought up in the autistic rights movement, it is controversial outside the autistic rights movement as well. Some people considered autism professionals and/or psychologists (such as Simon Baron-Cohen and Christopher Gillberg) have contributed to this speculation.

Neurodiversity.com lists eight people speculated as being autistic on its index page and then makes the statement, "honoring the variety of human wiring" [3].

This speculation may be seen as an attempt to create role models for autistics and to show people that autistics can do constructive things and contribute to society. This issue is discussed by autistic rights activists often in an effort to convince people that it would be a loss to society if autism were cured. Others in the autistic rights movement, however, dislike this argument, because they feel autistics should be able to value their uniqueness without the desire for a cure regardless of whether or not people like Einstein were autistic.

Some autistics value their "being" regardless of what others think, or of how unique it is. They prefer to redress the current diversion from the original clinical meaning. Pointing out the immense contributions of scientists and inventors who might have been autistic may be an attempt of anti-cure advocates to change the viewpoints of pro-cure advocates.

Let me see:

• sections 1 to 5 are openly anti-cure. No problem, if it weren't for the fact that
• the only supposedly pro-cure section (6.1 'criticism') is laughably short, obviously written by an anti and full of counter-arguments (which should be reserved for section 6.2) and
• section 6.2 ('responses from the movement') is twice as long as 6.1.

I have Asperger's, so you can conclude from that what you will. 84.53.74.196 21:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

While the Autistics rights movement dose have some serious issues to complain about I think their over reacting, I mean really a cure for autism, that’s neurologically impossible like curing asthma or diabetes or epileptics you just can’t do it, all you do is find the most effective treatments possible to help the people interact with standard society and ease difficulties in their lives, and I don’t think thay would really hae reservations about that. -- J intela 22:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

This part made no sense to me:

Some autistics would prefer autism to be seen as a disability rather than a disease,

The schism appears to be between difference and disability, not disability and disease. The wording may be the result of vandalism, with the original word being difference. In any case, I removed it and copyedited the surrounding text. -- elmindreda ( talk) 06:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It's in this section, by the way. -- elmindreda ( talk) 06:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

With the recent media attention surrounding calls for the retraction of a certain ad campaign, I think the Autistic Self-Advocacy Network (ASAN) would be sufficiently notable for addition. -- elmindreda ( talk) 11:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)